August 08, 2010

Categories:

Former Bush administration Solicitor General Ted Olson said Sunday he expects the Supreme Court to address the issue of same-sex marriage — and that he will deliver to the justices a strong case that gays have a right to marry under the Constitution.

"The other side really produced no evidence at all," said Olson, the prominent conservative lawyer who is leading the legal battle against the California ban on gay marriage. "This is an overwhelming record that supports the fact that individuals are being hurt ... and that California has no rational basis for continuing the discrimination.

"When that gets to the Supreme Court, I think that will be persuasive to all of the justices on the Supreme Court," Olson said on "Fox News Sunday."

What a pleasure to hear two highly intelligent Republicans answering questions directly and sanely! Agree or disagree with them, Ted Olsen and Mitch Daniels remind one of earlier days when voting Republican made some sense. Ted Olsen made a confident, powerful constitutional case for the right to marry without unfair discrimination. Mitch Daniels, unlike all other Republican politicians I’ve heard this year, acknowledged and met the challenge of needing to reform Medicare and Social Security, citing specific cuts and changes he would tentatively advance without resorting to snake-oil cures like dismantling and privatizing the programs with inadequate vouchers handed to citizens before being thrown to the private sector sharks.

Got to believe that Fox really didn't like to hear Olsen's explanation of why banning gay marriage is discriminatory. Will be interesting to see Fox's spin on a conservative's view. They will undoubtedly try to blame the judge.!!

There has never been a federal sodomy statute of any kind, let alone a capital one.
Uh -- and the "Founding Fathers" were long dead before the 14th amendment was written. Presumambly, it was to right some of the wisdom passed on by the "Founding Fathers" which they may have gotten wrong."

I love how the "Founding Fathers" are always referenced when convenient. They are not our gods. They enshrined the legality of slavery into our Constitution, originally, as well; shall we defer to them always? And, if you read the entire opinion, you would realize that it's not "homosexual marriage" that is a fundamental right, but rather marriage that the SCOTUS has held to be a fundamental right, and that the Due Process clause and the Equal Protection clause have over time expanded the reach of it as marriage has been "redefined" from being a union in which the male who owns his wife as property to a union of equals in which gender roles have already disappeared.
In this context, there is no secular, rational governmental interest in restricting such a union to persons of the opposite sex only. This was demonstrated empirically at the trial.

Objection I'm pretty sure The "founding fathers" would have been about 140 years old by 1868. There's no "homosexual marriage", only the equal right to marry. Is it hard being so breathtakingly ignorant?

I really wish someone could give a well studied reason for this topic. I have researched marriage why..when..where..cultures..the science behind the behavior of all humans. I really don't care. I honestly think where a civil union is allowed as an alternative with pertinent benefits any argument beyond that is a sad cry for attention. I don't care if you know I'm married and I equally don't care if ypu are. I certainly don't advertise if my partner is female or male and I really don't want to think about your sex life. Believe me the minute I know 2 women are married or 2 men, I'm immediately forced to confront the thought of your behavior which may be against many beliefs systems of various academics

@geked: You say you "really don't care" but "the thought of our behavior" is something you find icky, and you believe that's an effective, relevant "argument" to counter the 14th Amendment's guarantees of due process and equal protection. Congratuations! You have just qualified to join the Prop 8 legal team. And that, dear, is why you have already lost this battle. "Equal" is the least complicated word in the English language.

It's so comical that I can't help but laugh and hysterically at that. First off, my heartfelt congratulations to the plaintiffs. It's nice to see that Justice prevailed and that Prop 8 was overturned. It's been interesting to see "conservatives" attacking Judge Vaughn for a myriad of things but more importantly over the fact that he is gay. Judge Vaughn had no choice but to overturn Prop 8 as the defendants presented the most pathetic case (in rocorded history perhaps) with no reasons to justify their position. The Gay and Lesbian community should be grateful in a way to the defendants, b/c their lack of competance allowed for Judge Vaughn to slam down the gavel with a scathing verdict. Perhaps 'conservatives" should band together and sue the lawyers for malpractice. You just don't walk into a courtroom and say that you don't know how same sex marriage would hurt or affect heterosexual marriage. But once again, thank you. I think the courts were waiting for a bunch of buffoons to come along and make idiots out of themselves like the defendants did. To further the point, the courts also now have the oppurtunity to review approximately 4 decades of case law and it's becoming painfully apparent that gays and lesbians have experienced a harsh history of discrimination. The courts have no choice but to start taking control. Now lets get to the crux of it. The gay and lesbian community has always been accused of having an agenda and it's becoming apparent that groups like Focus On The Family have their own disturbing agenda. So many have said that they are concerned about losing their religious liberties; however Judge Vaughn was brilliant in the manner in which he DIVORCED THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE (no pun intended) and it's about time someone had the courage to do it. Funny thing though is that he protects the church in his ruling nonetheless stating that the church would never have to perform a same sex wedding; henceforth it's a civil matter as we all know. So as groups like Focus On the Family continue to prove that the issue isn't religious liberty but just a private moral disapproval of homosexuals, the courts will continue to galvinize these pathetic arguments to shreds and pieces and they will remain forever unsalvagable. As the revolting group National Organization for Marriage (NOM) concludes its Summer For Marriage tour, I hope the state of California begins reissuing marriage liscences again to homosexuals...Hopefully in the next week. What a ftting way for NOM to be pushed out of the spotlight. I'm tired of seeing groups like NOM who welcome people to demonstrate with posters suggesting that the cure for same sex marriage is a noose. Sickening. And so it appears the true agenda for these "traditional' and "conservative" groups is to forever supress the rights of those whom are different. Those days are coming to an end.

Tim Garcia, just make it up, Steve Rosenberger and Jason - you've all contributed to an outbreak of sanity on this thread. It nice to know that not everyone who blogs is a moron. I get so discouraged by the tripe I usually read here and you guys really give me hope that when people use critical thinking and a bit of fact based logic they tend to come up with principled opinions. Or actual facts.

Prop 8 supporters got screwed by their own lawyers and I am so glad to see how Act 1 of this drama has played out. Both sides knew the sexuality of the Judge BEFORE the trial. In their opening arguments, Prop 8 lawyers told the judge they would bring scientific facts to show that queers were bad for kids, marriage, America as a country and mankind, while there are at it. The problem for Prop 8 lawyers is that when asked to provide ALL that scientific study, there only comments were "I don't know...I don't know...I don't know"! How DUMB is that? So now there is a trier of fact who has laid out arguments the Supreme court will be hard pressed to overturn. This was a great ruling by a fair and unbiased trier of fact whose sexuality is not an issue but his ruling will withstand the test of all appeals courts, including the Supreme's. 9-0 vote to overrule Prop 8 by the US Supreme court just in time for the 2012 POTUS campaign!

Ted was brilliant. Sorry to say but he quantifiably proved the ugliness of discrimination and set thye stage for all current court cases to have a field day prancing over arguments that no longer have validity. Time for opposers to gay back to the old drawing board so to speak.

Prop 8 supporters got screwed by their own lawyers and I am so glad to see how Act 1 of this drama has played out. Both sides knew the sexuality of the Judge BEFORE the trial. In their opening arguments, Prop 8 lawyers told the judge they would bring scientific facts to show that queers were bad for kids, marriage, America as a country and mankind, while there are at it. The problem for Prop 8 lawyers is that when asked to provide ALL that scientific study, there only comments were "I don't know...I don't know...I don't know"! How DUMB is that? So now there is a trier of fact who has laid out arguments the Supreme court will be hard pressed to overturn. This was a great ruling by a fair and unbiased trier of fact whose sexuality is not an issue but his ruling will withstand the test of all appeals courts, including the Supreme's. 9-0 vote to overrule Prop 8 by the US Supreme court just in time for the 2012 POTUS campaign!

I thought Olson made a very strong argument… the fundamental right to marry. My question is what does that mean for polygamy? Can any two consenting adults marry (brother & sister, mother & son, kissing cousins)?

Olson did make an incredible argument. The Supreme Court has fiercely defended the "fundamental" right to marry. For example, the Supreme Court has upheld that incarcerated prisoners can marry. Since a heterosexual child molester has a "fundamental" right to marry, I see no reason why a law abiding, taxpaying, and contributing member of society (who happens to be gay) should be treated differently. B/C THEY SHOULDNT...

hmm - the founding fathers felt slavery in all forms was acceptable - that women had no rights to vote or anything else much I guess, even had a caste system based on what country you came from and how long you'd been here - so I guess in "Objection"'s mind perhaps all social circumstances that existed back 150 to 200 years ago really should be reinstituted (as long as they meet his personal position of what is fair - because we all know his opinion of fair should be what we all should accept as "right")
so just thinking out loud - what are your specific religious beliefs, and perhaps we should go back to when your ancestors were perhaps persecuted out of wherever they came from - maybe that is the point in time we should establish what rights we should all expect - hey, maybe we should go back to Rome when gays were part of society and Christians were tortured and killed for their beliefs - hmmmm
arrogant blowhard - when it is your rights being trampled on, I'd bet you be first in line crying foul"

hmm - the founding fathers felt slavery in all forms was acceptable - that women had no rights to vote or anything else much I guess, even had a caste system based on what country you came from and how long you'd been here - so I guess in "Objection"'s mind perhaps all social circumstances that existed back 150 to 200 years ago really should be reinstituted (as long as they meet his personal position of what is fair - because we all know his opinion of fair should be what we all should accept as "right")
so just thinking out loud - what are your specific religious beliefs, and perhaps we should go back to when your ancestors were perhaps persecuted out of wherever they came from - maybe that is the point in time we should establish what rights we should all expect - hey, maybe we should go back to Rome when gays were part of society and Christians were tortured and killed for their beliefs - hmmmm
arrogant blowhard - when it is your rights being trampled on, I'd bet you be first in line crying foul"

I think that the government should only license civil unions and marriage ceremonies should take place with no government involvement. The government issues birth certificates but has no role in baptisms.

Um, the question in CA is: Who is sovereign, the people of the state who have the right to determine marriage laws, or an usurping Federal judge who has decided that the votes of millions of Californians are less important than his single vote. The judicial dictatorship will come to an end.

Constitution guarantees gay marriage? No, it does not guarantee hetero marriages either. So how is it the gays are pished upon? Over the past 10-15 years some people were "given" houses. Did all of you get yours? I got no compensation for those give-aways. Ted Olsen -- one more elitist.

Posted By: Constitution guarantees gay marriage? No, it does not guarantee hetero marriages either. So how is i | August 08, 2010 at 04:44 PM

When people asked me what I thought about Proposition 8, my immediate thought (promise) was that it was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. 14th Amendment rights extends to "citizens", not just to certain classes of citizens. As for the arguments that this could lead to polygamy or incest, it won't, because there is clearly documented "harm" in allowing close relatives to marry (high incidence of birth defects), as there is "harm" in having multiple spouses (division of property in probate). The people for Proposition 8 didn't want a trial because they knew they couldn't win one; only two of their so-called "expert witnesses" even bothered to show up. And the defence's lawyers (who are actually very competent) had to resort to grabbing at straws with their First Amendment argument. If this was about a woman's right to work as a bus driver and some folks said God made woman to do "women's jobs" and then hung their case on "religious freedom" they would have been laughed right out of court.

Broadway How can the 14th amendment green light 'gay' marriage, since sodomy was a crime when that amendment was passed? And granting practioners of sodomy (out of all existing sexual practices) special rights above all others who choose to practice other sexual activities can not be found in the Constitution. Found in the salons of the elite, yes. But not in the Constitution.

Being able to sleep with the person you love might be a right...forcing the rest of society to condone your relationship, sanction it, subsidize it, against moral and biological laws, is most certainly NOT a right.
Churches are powerless in our society, and parents lose any authority over their children at age 18. Government recognition of marriage is the ONLY true avenue our society has to promote the heterosexual, monogamous lifestyle that is key to furthering our nation.

If Gay Marriage becomes legal, state-sanctioned marriage will have lost all meaning.
IF Gay Marriage becomes legal, it will be time to abolish marriage as a government institution altogether, and switch to a system of tax breaks and incentives that promote procreation by monogamous straight coupels...which is the whole purpose of state-recognized marriage to begin with.

Ah, the art of finding hidden, yet intended rights in the constitution - when it comes to liberals, they are the best at finding the Easter eggs hidden in the garden. What a mockery - while sure the defense acted poorly in calif., the plaitinff were simply grotesque when illustrated homosexual marriage's traditions by mentioning Heliogabalus, Nero and Caligula. But for Walker and the MSM, everything was and is fine when facts are shaped to match conclusions. I don'r think that SCOTUS will go this - hopefully -

Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don't choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.
(Change *** to www)
***-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
***.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men's Brain Responses Differ
***.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
***.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
***.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/

Homosexuality isn't a choice. Ok, neither is alcohol addiction, drug addiction, pedophelia, or any of the 101 other conditions society rejects as acceptable. Having the urge to do something is very different from actually doing it, and even more different from having society condone what you do.
Homosexuality itself is not a sin - the sin is acting on the desires.
For those who state that churches wouldn't be forced to perform gay marriage, you are right...but that doesn't mean it doesn't harm the institution. When somebody says "we're married", how many others stop and ask whether it was in a church, or in a courtroom? Not many.

For all the advocates of Gay Marriage on here, let me ask a question:
If we can no longer use our marriage laws to promote socially-beneficial behavior, then what avenue do we, as a nation, have to promote the procreative, heterosexual monogamy that is necessary to produce and raise the next generation?

Oh for crying out loud, I am sooooo tired of hearing about this crap. Let homsexuals get married and let this end. All 50 States should immediately allow them to get married and also repeal DADT immediately. Let homsexuals adopt kids. Puleeeeeeeeeeze...just get them to stop. Our economy is crumbling, illegal aliens and drug smugglers are streaming through the country, and all this time is being wasted on what people do with their genitals. Just one favor though: our local newspaper has taken to showing one homosexual couple per week in the 'wedding announcement section'., Two men or two women are pictured with a write-up that they were married in Mass. but have friends in the State where I live. Hence, the need for the photo and write-up. Well, will they also include WHICH ONE IS THE HUSBAND AND WHICH ONE IS THE WIFE? Both the men looked like men, and both the women looked like women (all four ugly as sin), but what role do they play, or will the words 'husband' and 'wife' be done away with, too? And can we stop with the photos of two guys tongue-kissing each other in Calif. as they celebrate the recent ruling? That's really hard to take. They never show the homsexual women doing that, just the men.

...that you describe the social foundation of our country, which is based on not only religious and moral, but also biological, truths, as "crap" tells us all we need to know about you.
Our nation cannot be strong - either economically or militarily - unless our cultural fabric and social structure are equally strong.

Grabski, setting aside the fact there has never been a federal law in the US criminalizing sodomy (only state and local statutes), marriage isn't permission to have sex. It's a contract of durable kinship between two individuals. Otherwise, post-menopausal women and men with low sperm counts wouldn't be able to marry. The history of marriage shows us that many marriage contracts were made to cause tribal or national alliances. Sometimes poverty is the driver - families encourage daughters to so that they no longer needed to provide for them. Some cultures have a form of marriage whereby the woman continues to live with her family and keeps her right of inheritance to keep wealth in the family. In some countries, common law marriage is still recognized, and it is even recognized in some US states. In some countries such as Australia and Canada, it is better to be married in common law than in a formal ceremony as unmarried people have better benefits and pay lower taxes. In the United States, certain financial benefits are given to married couples which are not given to common law or same sex couples. Not just by the government, but by corporations. On the other hand, marriage means assuming your partners' debts if he or she should become insolvent or die. I've read a statistic recently that 15% of American married couples only have sex once a year or less, and that's an average, which means some married couples do not have sex at all. In religious terms, in the Old Testament, the woman did not have the right of consent over who she married. She was sold by her father to a man in exchange for a dowry, which was the custom in many cultures/religions and still is in some (Hindu, for example). Then of course, there are marriages of hypergyny or convenience, where the motives are totally nothing to do with sex. They may be for residency or citizenship. They may be because one partner is sick and wants to take advantage of healthcare on someone else'se policy, or just to have somebody they trust in charge of their affairs. It may be for social status or tax reasons, for someone to do certain chores they can't or don't want to do themselves, or for mere companionship. Yet these marriages still take place legally in the United States.

"And black people were considered 3/5 of a man, so does that mean that black people aren't entitled to be treated equally under the law?"
Slaves were counted as 3/5 for the purpose of representation. Free blacks were counted the same as whites. It was put in the Constitution as a compromise. Those from free states did not want to count them, since they could not vote, while those from slaves states wanted to count them.

It is true that not all marriages, even heterosexual ones, are what we would define as traditional.
But a couple not having sex, or a couple being infertile, or even a couple only getting married for tax reasons, does not redefine the institution the way homosexual marriage does.
As long as it is one man and one woman getting married, it promotes a monogamous, heterosexual lifestyle that, as addopted by the vast majority of people, does lead to procreation.

But Matthew - this is about the constitutionality of denying equal rights to same sex couples as opposite sex couples. Procreation is a matter of choice inside or outside marriage. If you want to institutionalize sex within marriage, then why not go all the way and institutionalize it outside of marriage to include unmarried sex and adultery? Because it is not the state's business to regulate what happens within or outside of marriage between consenting adults, but to ensure that every citizen is treated equally.

For heaven's sake, everyone knows people don't get married to fulfill some social-governmental program requirement to produce children. They get married because they love each other. This crap about fulfilling some government interest is pure baloney, if people were really honest they would see this argument is bull. The bottom line is that some religious people don't want the government to recognize the rights of gays because it shakes the foundation of their dogma, particularly the Mormons, who teach, by the way, that there is polygamy in heaven. They have to teach this because they also teach that marriage is for time and all eternity, so what happens when a man finally dies who has married three women during his lifetime, all of whom died in marriage before him. All of a sudden in the afterlife John Mormon has three wives. Well, then, that's okay. Of course, women can have only ONE temple marriage, because polyandry is not permitted in the afterlife. So this crazy group of people are going to tell me that I can't get married at all, to even ONE other man? And Californians are going to go for this? Ha! You know that Mormons actually had to compromise on the one man one woman part of Prop 8. If they really had their way, it would have said what they really believe: "Only marriages between one Mormon man and however many women he can afford to marry are valid or recognized in California." And these are the people we're supposed to believe about FAMILIES? Apparently BIG LOVE has had far too many viewers. When oh when are all these screwed up people going to leave gays alone. Remember, Prop 8 TOOK AWAY the right to marry. And there are 18,000 marriages to prove it. Who really re-defined marriage in California? Before these silly Prop 8 people came around, gays COULD get married in California. So it's just plain obvious that all these nutso people want to do is **** on gay people. And it's not like heteros have done a particularly good job of raising children. What the law really should have said is "Only marriages between two men or two women are recognized in California." This way children could be ASSURED that marriage is between people that really love each other. Because married people get extra benefits, marriage should be a reward. Do you see how all of this crap about keeping marriage straight (or gay) is just a bunch of bull? The bottom line is this: if you're going to get benefits from marriage, everyone should get a license, gay or straight. EQUALITY!

"objection says" Sodomy was a capital offense and remained a capital offense until 1868. . As the 14th Amendment was being written sodomy was still a capital offense.etc "
Sounds like this blogger is actually calling for the murder of gay people. Which has been supported in Uganda by some American (anything but )christian missionaries, and the head of the Exodus fix the gays group, Mr. Schiermerer. Called a fake by every mainstream psych group and the AMA, American Pediatrics Association etc.
I thought Hitler committed suicide back in April 1945. Along with his minister of Propaganda, Goebbels. Who brought Hitler to power with the phrase "if you tell a lie often enough, iand outrageous enough it will be seen as the truth."
Looks like they've both been re-incarnated, or reborn. Some people never learn, and they follow madmen to ruin, but leaving death and destruction in their wake.
Not just some of the anything but christian Christians, but the taliban and people who gave us 9/11 as well

This is an "equal protection" case about marriage which has been determined to be a fundamental right. The Court heard the case, listened to facts as presented by each side, and applied constitutional law accordingly. It is interesting to see commentary suggesting the lawyers blew the case. What case? Arguments presented by groups such as NOM lack the basic elements of well constructed paragraph that is, their argument offers an introductory sentence, fails to provide supporting detail, and ends with a concluding sentence. Read the case.

This is an "equal protection" case about marriage which has been determined to be a fundamental right. The Court heard the case, listened to facts as presented by each side, and applied constitutional law accordingly. It is interesting to see commentary suggesting the lawyers blew the case. What case? Arguments presented by groups such as NOM lack the basic elements of well constructed paragraph that is, their argument offers an introductory sentence, fails to provide supporting detail, and ends with a concluding sentence. Read the case.

Well, listening to Matthew and some of the others, its obvious that the KKK still lives and has a new group to denigrate and demonize.
The key reason for marriage is to help people have stable relationships which are beneficial to all in our society.
While meanwhile it is the str8s who are destroying marriage with a 50% divorce rate. While it is a big big deal when a gay couple goes to get a divorce occasionally.
The western World has voted on the issue of Marriage equality, just as it voted on slavery, women voting, and allowing inter-racial marriage.
In the last two months, Argentina, Portugal, and Iceland (vote 49-0 in Parliment) approved gay marriage,
ULtra catholic Ireland approved civil unions with all the rights of marriage. Finland is moving from registered partnerships to "Marriage".
And now every last country of western Europe except Italy and greece (reason obvious) has gay marriage or a similar structure. Canada, New Zealand, and australia also
Nepal, and in special case Japan. And Israel, Republic of south africa.
Also Austria, Hungary and Chech republic, with movement in Slovenia and Macedonia.
And Latin America is speeding down the parth of justice and equality. Argentina, & Columbia(marriage via common law). Equador and Uraguay civil unions. Brazil partial rights. Chile and Peru moving forward.
The world is trying to tell us something. Just as it was trying to tell us something back in the first half of the 1800s re slavery.
That its time to bury the KKK and our talibangelicals hatreds and move on to the future.
And just maybe, given the opposition of the catholic church hierarchy that there is warning and truth in the 3rd secret relevation that occurred at Fatima.in 1917.
Siad to be the church will be destroyed.
Obviously by its own hand and the pope who eg told Africans to not use condoms. In a continent with 23 million AIDS cases, and children born every day with this death sentence. Insane. And it shows also in the marriage debate.

The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law and the constitution.
As we have seen so many times in America's history, courts are the last resort when the majority tries to impose its beliefs, eg slavery and segregation were justified as per the bible etc etc
So the courts solve the problem.
And the country has to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.
As some people in the equality movement have said, the battle is all but over, but the screaming has only started.
But 80% of the next generation, as we get gay people out of the ghettoization of the closet, support full acceptance for gay people.
For its hard to hate people you know and respect.
And the marriage struggle is really about respect of gay people as part of God's creation. Entitled to be treated as full citizens, not the victims of the old 3/5 of a citizen that was used against another minority for so long.
Amazing how so many people corrupt the concept of God to satify their own insecurities about life.
God will judge. The clock ticks for them..

God help us.This country has gone crazy. Study what happened during the Roman Empire. No standards , no morals. First divorce like its switching a job and now gay marriage.Holy Matrimony has been desecrated, Its sad really!!!

I missed Thursdays big news. In Mexico, their Supreme court threw out the attempt by the church to overthrow marriage equality in Mexico. City.
Opening the way to full rights all over that country for its gay citizens.
And even in China, some city - forget the complex name - is now considered its gay capital.
Even a hard line state like communist china moves forward, as it has economically, regarding minority rights.
We Americans should all be ashamed.

So then Steve, I take it you see no value, nor importance, in procreation and childrearing? I have as big of a problem with high divorce rates as I do with Gay Marriage.
I told you - make a strong argument that we can promote heterosexual monogamy through some means other than government-recognized marriage, and you might be able to convince me.
But you've got no chance when you judge God through the lens of 5% of the population who want the rest of us to sanction their sexual urges.

For the most part, I try to leave religion out of the debate...
but when you try and tell me that it would be God's will to allow gay marriage - when the Bible EXPLICITY states (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) that "homosexual offenders" will NOT inherit the kingdom of heaven - then you have lost all credibility

A skillful use of "discrimination" against an artificial minority. The argument may hold up in the court of man but it does not hold up in the court that counts -- the Kingdom of God. Pray for them and hate the sin not the sinner...

Posted By: A skillful use of "discrimination" against an artificial minority. The argument may hold up in the | August 08, 2010 at 09:24 PM

The absense of a prohibition in the past, such as a federal anti-sodomy statute shold not be construed to mean there were no objections to sodomy. One can argue that sodomy -- a male putting his ***** into the rectum of another male is so disgustingly revolting that no rational human being would suppose a law would be needed for something so obvious.
If history is our teacher, the most resiliant civilizations build families from a male and a female, and surround them with laws and cultural norms that enable both parents and children to thrive.
Marriage is much more than sex of course, but it is about sex. And to include a version of marriage that announces to the community that we (males) put our *****es in each other's rectums seems a profoundly stupid behavior to distinguish a relationship by.
What do I need to know that another man pokes his pecker into the ******* of another man -- and call it marriage.
And why should I not want to associate with someone who puts their ***** into the rectum of another man? How can a rational person defend such disgusting behavior?

I applaud Olson's decision to argue this issue in court, and find his optimism regarding the future of this trial inspiring.
I must say though, after reading through the many comments both here and other places, this argument regarding the existence of sodomy laws 150 years ago truly have no merit. Sodomy refers to "unnatural" sexual behavior between any sexuality, gay or straight. Homosexuality is not a new idea. It existed thousands of years ago, and it existed when the "founding fathers," as the opponents of this ruling like to refer to, wrote the constitution. If their intent was to outlaw the emotional and physical relationship between two people of the same sex, wouldn't it be safe to say that they would have used the same decisive language the rest of the constitution is written with?

to Matthew and other religious nuts...keep your religious dogma out of this debate. Religion is not a foundation of public policy, otherwise we would be a theocracy like Iran. Why does any article about homosexuality end up with religious buffoons condemning everyone about their "deviance" and "sin"? It seems that everyone that is anti-gay marriage is anti-gay pure and simple. Just look at the comments posted here as evidence. The fear and "eww gays are icky" tactics used by Prop 8 supporters won't stand up in the court of law, that is why they lost so badly. Olson made a brilliant argument and he should be commended on his efforts. Olson schooled Wallace in this interview. Its nice to see a conservative with some wits. Social conservatives apparently do not have any. Some of you people need to wake up; its the 21st century.

@Matthew, you would do well to educate yourself to know; the word 'homosexuality' was a completely NON-EXISTENT word until the mid- 1800's, where it was coined in Germany. The first word 'Malakoi', which literally meant 'soft' or 'soft ones'. Back then, women were viewed as property and were to submit to their husbands. Back then, a man who was called that was seen as a coward or lazy.
The second word was "Arsenokoitai"; it does NOT translate into 'homosexual', that much scholars are certain. It's modern translation is still questioned, but it believed to mean a male prostitute. And this was written in a time with the human sex trade was rampant and open. It refereed to moral laxity, NOT what two men or two women engaged in a loving relationship.
In short, 'homosexual offenders' is a MODERN addition to the Bible. This is not only a grossly inaccurate translation of the words themselves, but I also view it as desecration of a Holy text in favor of personal prejudices.
Also, you are basically suggesting that procreation will grind to a halt should gay people be permitted to marry each other. This is so fallacious it's sad. People will still have babies, will still adopt and will still do invitro. What evidence is there to suggest what you THINK will happen? How do two men or two women getting married and entering a loving, supportive relationship in ANY WAY affect the marriage of a man and woman?

Maybe the govt should get out of the marraige business. Like everything else, they are screwing it up. It seems like a religious institution, to me. If people want to get married let them do it thru their church. Just like the govt would have no business baptizing people, they have no business participating in the marraige of people. It's a religious institution. Our secular government's business would end with what consenting adults decide. Marraige pre-supposes their is a God. Otherwise, why would it matter. Sounds like govt involvement would therefore be prohibited under church/state separation. Marraige would then be strictly administerd by one's church and never recognized by the state.

"And black people were considered 3/5 of a man, so does that mean that black people aren't entitled to be treated equally under the law?"

Actually they get Affirmative Action as payback. But more importantly, it was not "black people" that were counted 3/5, it was "slaves" that were 3/5 for purposes of apportionment in Congress. Not all blacks in America were slaves, and not all states were slave states.

Founding Fathers?
You mean those old white guys who owned slaves, and owned their wives (and children) like property? Those who denied their own wives and daughters the right to vote?
You mean those who never heard of a dinosaur, never heard of a microscope, never heard of a germ?
You mean those old bibled-up dudes who believed in (and hanged and burned) witches and warlocks?
You mean those smart people who, when George Washington fell ill, decided his problem was that he had too much blood and relieved him of most of his?
Hey -- YOU go live by the knowledge, conventions, morrays, and such of the 1700s. Then maybe we should insist that Gay people should be treated as they were in the 18the century.
What skin is it off your nose that someone else isn't being discriminated against?
Your whole idea that it should be up to you how gay should be treated is the stuff of duds who desparately need someone to feel superior to.

The one thing you are all missing here is that the legislation is being made from the "bench" and the will of the people is being usurped. The whole reason we have elections and ballot initiatives is so the WILL OF THE PEOPLE can be heard and done. If the people, by majority vote, don't want same-sex marriage, then it is their will and it should be law.

The one thing you are all missing here is that the legislation is being made from the "bench" and the will of the people is being usurped. The whole reason we have elections and ballot initiatives is so the WILL OF THE PEOPLE can be heard and done. If the people, by majority vote, don't want same-sex marriage, then it is their will and it should be law.

@Objection
The sodomy laws you speak of also included both anal and ******** between both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
"So there was no intent of the founding fathers to imply that so-called homosexual "marriage" was a protected "right" under the Constitution."
So your called opinion is flawed from the get go. There would be no intent for the founding fathers to imply that so-called heterosexual "marriage" was a protected "right" under the Constitution.
Now, the Courts have consistently ruled that "marriage" was a basic human right. And they will rule the same for Gay marriage, per the 14th Amendment.

OMG! If it's OK for gays to get married, where will future populations come from?
Wha?? Like, if straight people can go gay and get married, then they'll do that instead of ... whatever they would do if gay people weren't getting married? Do y'all ever listen to what comes out of your mouths?
OMG -- we won't have enough people to ... do something; I don't know exactloy what. We already have 6 BILLION people on this particular space rock. I don''t think we really need to worry about breeding sufficient future populations .(As if it's your responsibility to worry about sufficient future populations.)

What a waste of a talented legal mind. Ted Olson ought to be saving the American constitution, which is being ripped to shreds. Instead, he is litigating a case that is about SEX. Period. That's all that it is about. People demanding that their proclivities be sanctioned by the State.
Hold on to your hats, folks, you are about to go for a ride.

Some dipstick sez ..."People demanding that their proclivities be sanctioned by the State..."
Yes-- absolutely. The government has no business approving or disapproving the private sexual behavior of any of its citizens. Nor does it have any business bestowing tax breaks and other benefits based on them. Maybe you missed it, but that is exactly the situation now, and what the suit intends to overthrow.

Posted By: Some dipstick sez ..."People demanding that their proclivities be sanctioned by the State..."
Y | August 08, 2010 at 11:29 PM

Sexuality is not a choice but to marry is. And marriage evolved from and but not for amorous, mutual attraction. Marriage is defined by history for one purpose and cohabitation is not it. Perpetuation of the human specie. Its purpose is abrogated by same-sex partners.
Putting boots in the oven don't make'em biscuits.

... the "bench"... vs "will of the people...
I take that to mean that gay people should have the rights that straight people think they should have -- as opposed to having the same exact rights as straight people do.
Hmmm... That sounds like the very purpose for which the courts exist.

Posted By: ... the "bench"... vs "will of the people...
I take that to mean that gay people should have th | August 08, 2010 at 11:38 PM

We should also prohibit people who don't want to have kids, people who can't and all the ****ed up divorced among us who keep taking a swing at the institution. Some of you need to get a life of your own and not worry so much about the ones of others. P.S. - heterosexual folks (particularly in red states) have done a bang up job of respecting marriage. Not.

Yet another doofus sez "...If the SCOTUS were to rule in favor of gay marriage...i don't see what the argument would be against siblings marrying each other, etc"
Wouldn't that be a hoot? People who write US laws would have to justify their interference with the normal behavior of US citizens, without passion or predjudice.
Sheesh -- I see how that would just wreck everything.

Matthew, you asked:
"For all the advocates of Gay Marriage on here, let me ask a question: If we can no longer use our marriage laws to promote socially-beneficial behavior, then what avenue do we, as a nation, have to promote the procreative, heterosexual monogamy that is necessary to produce and raise the next generation?"
The answer is.... marriage. It's not "gay marriage" or "straight marriage". It's just "marriage". It's the most respected and valued union supported by the government and its people. It's the perfect union to raise children, which, by the way, may gay couples do. There are more children needing parents than there are couples willing to take them. The fact that gay couples take them in, adopt them, and lovingly raise them is yet another reason why marriage should not be denied them.
Also, gay couples do not want a "same-sex" marriage, they want a marriage. Just the same as any straight couple. Nobody's changing marriage. All they're doing is saying "you can't deny it to these people for no good reason."
The Supreme Court has defended marriage as a fundamental right available to every one of its citizens. Not just straight people or people that you approve of, but everyone. Marriage is so important, no other union can match it, and the court has determined it's wrong to deny it to a whole class of people without a good reason. And a good reason is *not* "we don't agree with their choice of a spouse."
You want to promote monogamy? Tell people to get married. You only want to promote "heterosexual monogamy"? Then tell heterosexuals to get married. Stop worrying about gay people and trying to take away their right to marry. It's a right everyone has.

And the same argument could be made for a man and his sheep. This is another shell game. Obama is 100% in favor of gay marriage. Look at what he does, and what is true, not what he says. They are almost never the same.

The Constitution as amended provides no role for the Feds in the issue of marriage but leaves this to the States. The States are free to amend the Constitution, and have in the past, for such issues as slavery, suffrage and prohibition. Let them do it again for gay marriage. Until they do, the courts have no Constitutional right to intervene. Scotus will deny this ruling 5-4 on the grounds that the Federal government has no say in the matter, but it is up to each State.

The real issue is a religious one, the separation of Church and State! Marriage was started as a covenant, an ordinance of the Church. Historically, all marriages were performed by the Church, not the government. In the modern era the government has co-opted the Church's role for the non-religious, and that is where we find ourselves today. Gay-marriage is an oxymoron, unless you are intellectually dishonest. You can't ask for equality and then change the paradigm. The paradigm is separate and it is not the same. It is as simple as looking at black-on-black and calling it black and white. There is no Civil Rights involved here, and nobody has actually lost anything, except to be able to say, "Me, too". You can all go home, now!

While you're voting on which rights to remove from people, put the supposed right to bear arm up for a vote, and no doubt, you will lose the vote and the supposed right to bear arms will be removed from you.

Children are always 'healthiest" with both a good mom and a good dad who are married (that means a man and a woman). This is the clear truth. It is sad that so many children are disadvantaged by other combinations and circumstances. Unfortunately the government has been the unintentional promoter of some of these inferior arrangements. We must do what we can to give children the best. The government has an interest in promoting what gives children the best outcomes.

The "its best for the children argument" is full of holes, and heterosexuals don't even abide by it. Under this logic, the state should ban divorce to promote raising children with a father and mother. Or the state should outlaw anyone having children who is not (straight)married. If you want the best for the children, start with fixing hetero-marriages and the over 50% divorce rate.

@Adam, if marriage were, as you claim a 'religious' institution, then atheists wouldn't be able to get married and people couldn't get married by a Justice of the Peace or just go to City Hall and get a marriage license. The fact is, marriage is NOT a religious institution.

@Adam, if marriage were, as you claim a 'religious' institution, then atheists wouldn't be able to get married and people couldn't get married by a Justice of the Peace or just go to City Hall and get a marriage license. The fact is, marriage is NOT a religious institution.

@ROEg, if you can name ONE INSTANCE where a sheep or any other animal ever gave consent to marrying a human and was able to legally enter a contract with said human, then by all means, go right ahead. In the meantime, as long as the two parties are both consensual adults, I've YET to see an honest-to-goodness problem with two people of the same sex getting married.

The government currently works to strengthen circumstances for what’s best for children. The government works to prevent teenage childbirth or prevent single mom’s from having multiple pregnancies. It should do more to prevent unnecessary divorces or other arrangement that are not the best for children. The government spends money to prevent unwanted pregnancies through family planning. The government spends money trying to get dad’s to do their job. The government has changed some of their policies that might encourage single women to have more children for financial gain. The government has had an interest in the best for children and should continue to work to promote what is best for children. Marriage definitions should promote government’s interest in seeing children get what’s best.

Hey Geked said, "Civil Union?" Sound anything like "separate but equal?"
Not at all. "Equal but not the same."
Nature abounds with examples of equal, but not the same. Male and female, for example.
Ever since the 60s, we have confused "equal" with "same." Read Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron."

The will of the people and democracy have been denied in California. What the ongoing legal abuse is saying is that the people have no rights to refuse association with, refuse taxpayer support of or to speak against homosexual and lesbian behaviors.
Those rights to refuse acceptance of homosexuality/lesbianism by the people are guaranteed fundamental Constitutional rights. The demands of perverse, abnormal, ungodly, immoral and illegal behavior will not accept majority vote renunciation of their behavior. The democratic vote of the people to refuse same sex marriage licensing and the people's vote to denounce homosexuality/lesbianism is the right of the people to declare what they view as dangerous and unacceptable harm to society, culture their children and their right of association, free speech etc.
Olson and the same sex marriage crowd cannot accept the democratic right of the people to decide for themselves what they will and will not accept as government and legal policy.
The legal system is endlessly corrupt and never should allow a hearing to overthrown the express will of the people of a state to refuse marriage licensing to homosexuals and lesbians.
For those of you who think this is somehow comparable to blacks, slavery and racism...you are trying to gain acceptance on the backs of civil rights issues (race) that were not a matter of personal choice whereas homosexuality and lesbianism are purely issues of free will and choice of sexual preference.

Posted By: The will of the people and democracy have been denied in California. What the ongoing legal abuse is | August 09, 2010 at 03:30 AM

Here's the issue, Matthew, and others that think like you: all people are entitled to the same fundamental rights. You may not like it, but there is no law against gay relationships. It's also a fact that you can get married in a non-religious way and in a non-religious setting, such as at a Justice Of The Peace office in a courthouse. So as long as those two above facts are true, under what possible logic could a person argue that gays can't get married in a non-religious setting? It's simply ignorance and/or bigotry to think otherwise.
Again, the issue is equal rights. As long as you allow straight people to get married in a non-religious setting, you legally and rationally have to allow gays to, also. I truly don't see a rational argument against it. At all. The only possible rational argument those supporting Prop 8 could have would be if marriage could only be performed in a church under the eyes of God. Of course, any church that didn't want to marry a gay couple would have to, and even Judge Walker said that himself. But marriage CAN be entered into in a way that has nothing to do with religion, so where's the argument? Furthermore, there are some churches that would allow gay weddings, so what about those? There's just no rational argument.
"Tradition" and "for the good of society" arguments don't fly. That's exactly what people supporting segregation said in the 1950's and what people supporting bans on interracial marriage said in the 1960's. Not allowing gays and lesbians to marry is discrimination and it's legally unfair. Slowly but surely, the nation will realize that. There's still probably a decent percentage of people in America that think that interracial marriage is wrong, especially in the South--a minority, to be sure, but you know it exists. In 50 years, there will probably be a strong minority that thinks gay marriage should be illegal. But it will be a MINORITY in 50 years. That's where it's headed. Society will wake up. I promise you that.

Oh, and for those insinuating that being gay is a sin and that you shouldn't act upon your natural urges, that has to be THE single most stupid argument I have ever heard. Sexuality is not a choice. How would you like it, straight people, if you were told you couldn't act on your desires to have intimacy with the opposite sex? Human beings are not complete without intimacy, and I don't mean just sex when I use the word intimacy. To suggest that homosexuals should not act on their desires to have intimacy with the same sex is absurdly stupid. I ask this of all Christians: unless you are Calvinists, which most Christians are not, do you truly believe that acting upon your natural intimate desires means you are going to Hell? (Calvinists, for those that don't know, believe in predestination--that you're predestined by God to go to either Heaven or Hell before you're even born.) You truly think that gays are just supposed to go through life being celibate? This is the year 2010, so let's please all be rational and realistic.
One last thing: gays do not choose to be gay. That's maybe the second-dumbest argument ever. If sexuality were a choice, then every single person is bisexual. That means that ladies, your man is attracted to other men, too, but he just chooses you. What a crock of you-know-what! And WHY would somebody choose the much harder life of being gay for themselves, if they had a choice? If you are a man who is attracted to other men, and you could feel the same physical attraction to women and gain the same emotional attachments from being attracted to them, then why wouldn't you be with women? Of course you would. Why would somebody subject themselves to the pressure of growing up gay that society throws at you? (The suicide rate among gay teens is exponentially higher than that of straight teens.) Subject themselves to a much greater risk for disease? (The life expectancy of gay men is considerably less than that of straight men.) It's common sense. Nobody would choose to have the harder life. Make no mistake about it: all other things being equal, it's harder to live as a gay person than it is a straight person. I don't know how anybody could argue that point.

**Red - I guess the question is who invented marraige - God or Govt. You say marraige is not a relegious institution or Atheists would not be able to et maried at the Justice of the Peace. That's fine with me - no more marrage penalty, no more marrage licenses. Is marraige even in the Constitution. After it's all banned - many would be married onley in the eye's of the church. Some in the Association for the Advancement of Atheists groups. But the State would be nuetral - out of the picture. They are using is a means to rob us anyway - so just have the state butt out.

People talk a lot about the "founding fathers" whether they would approve of same sex marriage or not etc. Make no mistake about the fact that the founding fathers were an eclectic group of nonconformists that were proposing some exceedingly radical proposals for their time. A definite lynch pin of the American revolution was the idea of freedom and liberty of the INDIVIDUAL. A common slogan was, "Don't tread on Me". So is this the United States of America or not? Does the individual have the right to make decisions about their lives as they see fit? If not, then the US Constitution is not worth the paper its written on.

Posted By: People talk a lot about the "founding fathers" whether they would approve of same sex marriage or no | August 09, 2010 at 08:31 AM

I have noticed how Mr. Olson, keeps slipping the word "orientation" into his speech, as in "sexual orientation' defined by him as a protected right? HUH????
When did sex become the same as sexual orientation. I guess he thinks he can redefine any thing he wants. Why do gays need MORE,or enhanced, rights than straights?????

marriage is between a man and a woman has been for centuries. so if we let John and James tie the knot then what about polygimists? shouldnt that be legal too? what about if someone wants to marry their dog? hey life lib and the pursuit. where does it end? what do you expect from a society that celebrates teen preganacy? With shows like Mtv's 16 and pregnate...

"If we can no longer use our marriage laws to promote socially-beneficial behavior, then what avenue do we, as a nation, have to promote the procreative, heterosexual monogamy that is necessary to produce and raise the next generation?"

What a ridiculous question. Laws don't guarantee the continuation of the species. Biology does. Humans were able to procreate just fine millions of years before they figured out how to create laws and governments to "promote" having babies.

Isn't it amazing that the same people who assert that the best government is the least government, will turn around and claim that our future survival depends on government.

@M Andrew are you serious??? The whole argument about children being "healthiest" growing up in a heterosexual, married mom and dad is baloney. I'm a social worker, and TRUST ME, there are a lot of crappy, awful straight marriages out there (forget the divorce rate, how about family violence??). Just curious, have any of you folks claiming that child rearing MUST be done by hetero parents checked out your state's adoption/foster care database? The majority of kids who are wards of the state and up for adoption are: medically fragile (eg, HIV+, celebral palsy, cystic fibrosis, etc), developmentally disabled, emotionally disturbed (eg, abused or neglected by birth parents), older, non-white (depending on what part of the country you're in), or in sibling groups that are difficult to place. There are some really phenomenal loving, gay couples out there who have dedicated themselves to caring for children that NO ONE ELSE WANTS... Do you think these kids would do better growing up in foster care and group homes? I can tell you for certain that they don't - the outcomes for kids that are raised in foster care are pretty bleak. Are people REALLY concerned that if gay people are "allowed" to get married that suddenly a whole bunch of straight people will decide to "go gay" and no one will procreate?? Um, I'm a heterosexual woman, married, and I have no intention of becoming a lesbian anytime soon, but I do look forward to the day when my gay and lesbian friends can enjoy the same rights and protections that I do with my husband! Get over it already, those of you who have such an issue with gay marriage probably don't even KNOW any gay people so please explain how this effects YOUR marriage in the slightest!

"those of you who have such an issue with gay marriage probably don't even KNOW any gay people so please explain how this effects YOUR marriage in the slightest"
I have no problems with gays marrying. They have the same right to "marry as a straight". My problem is with re-defining the word.
So don't try to tell us that up is down and black is white. You may be able to not live in reality, but we do.
And gays openly pretending to be married, may not affect a straight's world because adults can see clearly throught the garbage. But when you want it shoved in front of children, you are causing them damage. There is no proof that homosexuality is NOT a learned behavior, and the best way to teach it to kids is to traumatize them with it. Any young child instintively knows what is meant to be natural.

Posted By: "those of you who have such an issue with gay marriage probably don't even KNOW any gay people so pl | August 09, 2010 at 11:42 AM

"There is no proof that homosexuality is NOT a learned behavior, and the best way to teach it to kids is to traumatize them with it. Any young child instinctively knows what is meant to be natural."

There is also no proof that it is a learned behavior.Your point is moot.

The best way to "teach" homosexuality to kids is to traumatize them with it? What does that even mean? Nobody is teaching children to be gay, and you're saying traumatizing equals best teaching method? Guess I'd better shove vegetables down my daughter's throat till she pukes, that ought to teach her good nutrition.

As for what children instinctively know, my young daughters while growing up have at various times stated a desire to marry me, or their mother, or their sister. They will instinctively develop a sexuality as they mature, but all the "rules" about what people can and cannot do are part of acculturation, not biological instinct.

The arguments from the Prop 8 supporters here today are incredibly weak.

Marriage for thousand of years been between a man and a woman. On the basis of equal protection why can't the union of homosexual couple be called something else, because it is something else, while insuring that homosexual relationships have rights that are equal to married heterosexuals? Many want to say homosexual and heterosexual relationship are the same. They obviously are not. Words should attempt to convey precise concepts. The gay community and our laws ought to create a word that uniquely defines the relationship between gays. And the gay community should be proud of this word and this relationship and not want to merged into the concept of heterosexual marriage. The laws of the country under equal protection should insure equal rights for people in this relationship. That is what Olsen should be protecting and should be the focus of equal protection; not co-opting a word for a different and established relationship.

First off, children today (and in recent years) ARE ALREADY exposed to gay people, unless you're living under a rock somewhere... There are gay families on television, gay people who live and work (gasp!) in our cities, and many kids already know other kids who have gay parents... How does allowing those folks to marry change that fact? The younger generations are not hung up on this issue - I'm 30 and I don't know a single person my age or younger who thinks that being gay is a "bad" or "unatural" thing. But to a couple of your main points:
"Redefinition" of marriage - when exactly was marriage "defined" in civil society (not religious institutions, they have there own rules and regs there obviously)? In years past, wives were the property of their husbands, divorce was illegal or functionally illegal, and interracial marriage was illegal. So, did we "redefine" marriage when we decided that people should be allowed to divorce, or that a black person should be allowed to marry a white person?
"But when you want it shoved in front of children, you are causing them damage. There is no proof that homosexuality is NOT a learned behavior, and the best way to teach it to kids is to traumatize them with it. Any young child instintively knows what is meant to be natural." Wow, I mean, WOW! Why do you assume that anything is going to be "shoved in front of children?" Do you think that gay families are going door to door demanding to give powerpoint presentations to your kids about the supremacy of homosexuality?? I think they probably have more important things to do with their time.
And I would definitely argue your point that homosexuality is a "learned" behavior. How exactly is it learned? Did you "learn" to be straight? Why on EARTH would a person "choose" to be gay? Their lives are infinitely more difficult than ours. I knew a few gay kids in high school and trust me, their experience was NOT easy... There are multiple shelters in Houston (where I live) for homeless gay teenagers who've been kicked out by their parents - kids as young as 13!! Are you honestly going to claim that a scared teenager would rather "choose" a "gay lifestyle" and end up on the street than stay at home with their family?! Yeah, that's an attractive choice alright!
Lastly, how exactly does it "traumatize" children to be exposed to the occasional gay family? I don't get this argument. A young child will be MOST influenced by their own parents - so if the parents tell their kids when they ask a question that, well, some people are just gay and there's nothing scary or bad about that - that's what the kids will accept! On the flip side, if parents tell their kids that being gay is wrong, I thiink they will adopt that idea as well. But you didn't address my point about gay adoption - do you think it is MORE traumatizing for children to be adopted and cared for by a loving, gay couple than to grow up in foster care or institutions? Especially consider the children that are difficult to place, or have grown up abused and neglected. I would love to hear your thoughts on that.

Yes you can traumatize children with open homosexuality. Being the social worker that you are, have you not heard that child abuse begets child abuse. How does the viscious cycle get started and end. Or, according to your theory, why should it even end. What's wrong with it?
Have you not heard that children's minds do not work like those of an adult? The cannot handle viewing deviant behavior? It traumatizes them. Adults can see unnatural behavior and know it is unnatural. Children are traumatized by it. It may never get out of their mind. It affects them. It is something they should never have been exposed to at their age. Since homosexual behavior is learned, or it was programmed into a child the same way abuse is. Why would you subject children to something that a human would 'naturally' see as 'unnatural'.
Show me one person who is denied the right to marry!!! Just one, please.

Posted By: Yes you can traumatize children with open homosexuality. Being the social worker that you are, have | August 09, 2010 at 12:48 PM

do you think it is MORE traumatizing for children to be adopted and cared for by a loving, gay couple than to grow up in foster care or institutions?
As a liberal , don't you think it would be best to just abort them????

Posted By: do you think it is MORE traumatizing for children to be adopted and cared for by a loving, gay coupl | August 09, 2010 at 12:54 PM

"do you think it is MORE traumatizing for children to be adopted and cared for by a loving, gay couple than to grow up in foster care or institutions? As a liberal , don't you think it would be best to just abort them????"
You are a disgusting person, I really feel sorry for you. Take a look at the workforce of non-profts and state agencies working to protect vunerable children and adults from harm. There are a lot of "liberals" like me who work in very difficult jobs for not a lot of money, so please refrain from sarcastic personal attacks meant to misrepresent the intentions of those who have a different opinion than you do.
I don't agree that homosexual acts are inherently "deviant," as you've said. If you want to believe that, listen to that preached in church, or teach your kids that, you have every right to. Go ahead. But there is absolutely no empirical evidence that says being gay is "chosen" or "learned." But therein lies the pro-prop 8 crowd's entire problem with the idea of gay marriage - THEY BELIEVE THAT HOMOSEXUALITY IS A CHOICE, a deviant "lifestyle" to be kept hidden and not legitamized in any way. It has nothing to do with their fear of "redefining traditional marriage," and everything to do with not wanting to accept homosexuality.

kcadams1980 ,
No matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are more caring and sympathetic and open-minded, you need to realized that none of that will make 2 plus 2 equal 5. It will always equal 4. Unless you define one of the two as a three, then.......
Gays can marry, but you want to redefine marriage, so that deviant, or if you wish, behavior outside the mainstream is seen as normal.
I don't care how nice, how successful, how caring anyone is. If you don't bring truth into the equation, then you will end up with chaos.
I feel sorry for you for not living in reality, but you are an adut and its you choice. Don't force children to live in your alternate universe.

Posted By: kcadams1980 ,
No matter how hard you try to convince yourself that you are more caring and sympathe | August 09, 2010 at 01:52 PM

"do you think it is MORE traumatizing for children to be adopted and cared for by a loving, gay couple than to grow up in foster care or institutions"
What does this have to do with redefining marriage. If you want all children to be adopted, I am sure the porn industry and child molesters would be willing??

Posted By: "do you think it is MORE traumatizing for children to be adopted and cared for by a loving, gay coup | August 09, 2010 at 02:22 PM

Doesnt the California ruling apply to bigomy or poligomay as well.
After all, they are all consenting adults.
If California can re-define marrage to include same-sex, well then there is no argument against multiple adults in a marriage.

The bottom line - America is a free choice nation. No one can be forced to marry a person they do not want to. No one can force a woman to have an abortion. No one forces anyone to worship or not, as they choose.
Thus why does the Right battle - a pure constitutional decision by a gay judge - but if an opposite decision was handed down by a heterosexual judge, it would have been OK? How will the Right respond if the decision is upheld by Roberts, Thomas, Scalia & Alito? Using the same standards, the 'male' Supreme Court Justices (or any male judge) should recuse themselves from abortion issue decisions?
Why does the Right support the right of a minority of the population to smoke cigarettes, blow smoke in my face, (this also, greatly increases America's medical costs)? But the Right will not support the rights of two people, to have the same rights they have, which does not affect their free choice of a life style?
Also, why does the Right feel it's OK for government control a woman's choice/body? Add to this, the fact, this is the view of many men who can not suffer the agony of an unwanted pregnancy.
Why does the Right want more guns in the general population to defend America, but not a gun registration program, so well trained authorities can call on gun owners to train as a militia when needed? Or police will know a gun is in a home when they approach?
Why does the Right want more guns, which kill people, but oppose abortions? The view I have is, it's OK to kill once a person is born, but not before.Fact, many innocent children are killed by guns.
How does the Right justify tax cuts, at the same time they do not want abortions? Where is the funding for two million additional children that would need education & health care? And it's OK to have guns which cost about $115 dollars each for additional law enforcement equipment and people but not adequately fund police forces?
Why does the Right feel it's OK to get medical treatment at a hospital when you don't have a commercial medical insurance policy, but you don't have to purchase a policy that would pay the bills?
In this election year, I expect the list of hypocrisies will continue. The picture is unanswered questions by the Right. Why is it right for non gun owners and non smokers, and those who purchase medical policies, to make up the difference the Right does not want to pay?

It is funny to read all these comments about gay people "shoving marriage in everyone's face" because you can thank the anti-gay prop 8 folks for that one. If it was not for Prop 8 gay folks in California would have continued to get quietly married and outside of friends and family noone would really have taken note. Instead we have the Prop 8 folks stirring up the pot (over something that is really none of their business) and so as result you get to see kissing couples on the news every night.
This whole appeal thing is fascinating. If the Prop 8 folks declined to appeal the marriage rights would be restored in California and noone else would affected. This would be the "taking" it slow approach that so many Prop 8 folks claim to want. Instead its going to be all or nothing at the National level, which really is the least sensible course of all.

When the Constitution was written, sodomy was a capital offense and remained a capital offense until 1868. ...
Posted By: Objection | August 08, 2010 at 10:45 AM
When the Constitution was written, blacks were slaves and women couldn't vote. What's your point?

When the Constitution was written, sodomy was a capital offense and remained a capital offense until 1868. ...
Posted By: Objection | August 08, 2010 at 10:45 AM
When the Constitution was written, blacks were slaves and women couldn't vote. What's your point?

If the SCOTUS were to rule in favor of gay marriage...i don't see what the argument would be against siblings marrying each other, etc.
Review your 9th grade Biology; it has to do with the convergence of recessive genes (which can produce physical defects in the offspring).

"Hey Geked said, "Civil Union?" Sound anything like "separate but equal?" Not at all. "Equal but not the same." Nature abounds with examples of equal, but not the same. Male and female, for example. Ever since the 60s, we have confused "equal" with "same." Read Kurt Vonnegut's "Harrison Bergeron."
Uh -- just to state the obvious, legal marriage and civil unions are not creations of nature, but of people. And the difference is created for no reason other than to make clear that they are neither the same nor equal -- that one is normal and encouraged and the other unwanted but tolerated in a few places.
I'll remind you of the famous SCOTUS ruling that separate is never equal.

Let's clear something up. Gay marriage is NOT ABOUT HAVING SEX. It's about being able to share a life with the person you love. Again, it is not about having sex. Just like heterosexual marriage is not about having sex (if it were many straight couples wouldn't stay married cause they stopped having sex after raising kids, etc.). Being able to marry the person you love is the most important thing in a person's life. It is the essence of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In the last 100 years, the SCOTUS affirmed more than a dozen times that the constitution guarantees this basic right. To deny a segment of the popular - gay people - this basic right to marry, is to deny these Americans the essence of our constitution. It would simply be un-American to allow for example Newt Gingrich the right to marry 3 times (how's that 'marriage is so sacred' thing working out for you Newt) but deny my partner and I (we've been together for 17 years) this fundamental right. The bottom line for all the homophobic people on the thread, "if you think gay marriage is so evil, then don't marry a gay person." And don't say, "it's bad for society, children, etc." because that line of attack didn't stand up in the court of law. The trial proved just the opposite. Facts are a great thing - until they get in the way. Face it, just like the Dixicrats in the 1960s, you'll be sadly on the wrong side of history.

Nothing in the US Constitution mentions marriage. Therefore, by default, marriage is a purview of the states and people. For thousands of years we have understood that marriage is between a man and a woman. We the People of California have voted against homosexual marriage (a physical and physiological impossibility) twice but have been thwarted TWICE by a single Federal judge. Where is the “We the People” in that?
We are not denying homosexuals anything. They have the same rights as any of us. In fact, as of late, homosexuals appear to have more rights and special dispensations than the rest of us – i.e., hyper-constitutional rights.
I kind’a think that I might be happy if I was married to three or four Playboy Playmates … at once. Why is my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being denied?
At this rate, in another decade or so, “common sense” will be court-ordered out of all of us. At that point, we will become a bunch of droolings idiots constantly bumping into each other.

The ignorance is truly astounding. Comparing a gay relationship to polygamy and to a man being with an animal? Really? You're only making yourself look stupid. Let's deal with facts, shall we? The reason polygamy is illegal is because the courts have decided that those type of relationships are damaging to the fabric of society. The courts have NOT decided that gay relationships are. How does a gay relationship, straight people, affect what YOU do at all? And using kids as a wedge issue in this argument is amazing. You don't learn to be gay! I already made it very clear earlier that you're born gay (or bisexual or straight, whatever the case may be). Nobody chooses the hard life for themselves; if gays could simply act on their alleged attraction for the opposite sex, believe me, they would! That's an exceptionally simple point. I grew up in a perfect home, my parents have been married for 36 years, and I grew up a sports-loving, athletic kid with no interest in fashion or dolls or what-not. And when I got to junior high, I noticed I was attracted to the boys and not the girls. For no apparent reason. You don't choose to be gay, and thinking otherwise is profoundly ignorant and stupid at this moment in time, the year 2010. Get educated and wake up!

In response to anti-jack@zz - three points - first, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled more than a dozen time in the last 80 plus years that marriage is a fundamental right per the 14th amendment. You can say until the cows come home that it isn't in the constitution but your just wrong. It's funny how facts are great things until they don't prove your case. Second, you can't vote on people's rights - they are protected by the constitution, not majority rule. If it was majority rule on people's rights then we'd have mob rule. If a majority in the state of California voted to ban fox news, they couldn't because Fox news is protected by freedom of speech in the constitution. And the third point, explain to me how your "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being denied?" What does gay marriage have to do with you and why should you even care what 10% (which people like you tend to dispute anyway - saying that it's only 2 or 3% of the population) of the population does. How does it affect you negatively? And don't give me the BS about the society, centuries old definition of marriage, children, etc. cause that has already been dis-proven by the case. Again, you have a right to your opinion but not to your own set of facts. Bottom line, it's un-American to deny citizens a fundamental, basic right that you have!

The will of the people and democracy have been denied in California. What the ongoing legal abuse is saying is that the people have no rights to refuse association with, refuse taxpayer support of or to speak against homosexual and lesbian behaviors.
Those rights to refuse acceptance of homosexuality/lesbianism by the people are guaranteed fundamental Constitutional rights. The demands of perverse, abnormal, ungodly, immoral and illegal behavior will not accept majority vote renunciation of their behavior. The democratic vote of the people to refuse same sex marriage licensing and the people's vote to denounce homosexuality/lesbianism is the right of the people to declare what they view as dangerous and unacceptable harm to society, culture their children and their right of association, free speech etc.
Olson and the same sex marriage wolves cannot accept the democratic right of the people to decide for themselves what they will and will not accept as government and legal policy. The legal system is endlessly corrupt and never should allow a hearing to overthrown the express majority will of the people of a state to refuse marriage licensing to homosexuals and lesbians. For those of you who think this is somehow comparable to blacks, slavery and racism...you are trying to gain acceptance on the backs of civil rights issues (race) that were not a matter of personal choice whereas homosexuality and lesbianism are purely issues of free will and choice of sexual preference.
And since when was the Republican Party ever the home of the real Christian interest anyway beyond Lincoln? Log Cabin Republicans are merely 'love of money' types disavowing Judeo/Christian sexual morality.
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."
Abraham Lincoln

Posted By: The will of the people and democracy have been denied in California. What the ongoing legal abuse is | August 10, 2010 at 09:26 AM

@the will of the people, etc: why should the people get to decide what goes on between two consenting adults? The defense brought TWO WITNESSES (not even good ones) to testify why Prop 8 should be upheld. They had NOTHING to go on. Religious convictions are not a reason to prevent two people of the same sex from marrying. The very ideal that people should get to vote on the private lives of two consensual adults of the same gender is downright tyrannical and un-American.

Diane, a little lesson on Roman History: The Roman Empire fell AFTER Christianity became the state religion and AFTER Christian morality motivated the state to make homosexuality anathema.
The Western Roman Empire did not fall because of "decadence," it fell because of a combination of high taxes, a non producing slave economy, epidemics which depleted their armed forces, population explosions that pushed migrations from Asia, a cold snap in north western Europe, civil wars, a diminishing tax base, and separating the poor Western Empire which did not produce from the wealthy Eastern Empire where all the Empire's capital was generated..